修订简化日内瓦评分在疑似肺栓塞患者分诊护士评估中的实施:回顾性图表回顾。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Emergency Medicine International Pub Date : 2025-05-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/emmi/2807776
Nicola Osti, Alberto Maino, Giulia Moreschini, Cristina Marinconz, Nicola Susca, Cristina Contu, Vito Racanelli, Anna Brugnolli
{"title":"修订简化日内瓦评分在疑似肺栓塞患者分诊护士评估中的实施:回顾性图表回顾。","authors":"Nicola Osti, Alberto Maino, Giulia Moreschini, Cristina Marinconz, Nicola Susca, Cristina Contu, Vito Racanelli, Anna Brugnolli","doi":"10.1155/emmi/2807776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a clinical condition frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED), with a high and early mortality rate. ED triage determines the priority of further evaluation of care at the time of patient arrival. Very little is known about the specific role of ED triage in PE. We aimed to evaluate (1) whether the current five-level triage (5LT) system can identify patients with PE and differently prioritize them for medical evaluation and (2) the discriminatory capacity of simplified revised Geneva score (SRGS) toward PE diagnosis when calculated by triage nurses. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective chart review on ED patients who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in 2023. Based on the CTPA report, patients were categorized into two subgroups: CTPA PE-negative and CTPA PE-positive. We then searched for correlations between PE diagnosis and triage priority level, time from triage to medical evaluation, SRGS, and National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). <b>Results:</b> Of the 196 patients included in the analysis (age 71.1 ± 16.9), 45 (23.0%) were CTPA PE-positive (26 proximal PE and 19 distal PE). There was no correlation between the assigned triage color code and the CTPA results. Although we found a statistically significant difference in the prevalence of CTPA-confirmed PE according to the results of the SRGS (<i>p</i> = 0.014), the SRGS calculated at the time of triage showed a poor prediction accuracy for subsequent PE diagnosis (area under curve [AUC] 0.608). NEWS2 was significantly associated with the triage-assigned priority level (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> The current 5LT was unable to differently prioritize patients with or without PE, and it seems unlikely that implementation of SRGS in the triage nurse evaluation will significantly improve the prioritization of patients with suspected PE for medical evaluation. Nonetheless, application of SRGS in triage evaluation may improve the appropriateness of the subsequent clinical pathway for PE diagnosis and risk stratification.</p>","PeriodicalId":11528,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine International","volume":"2025 ","pages":"2807776"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101901/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation of Revised Simplified Geneva Score in Triage Nurse Evaluation for Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Chart Review.\",\"authors\":\"Nicola Osti, Alberto Maino, Giulia Moreschini, Cristina Marinconz, Nicola Susca, Cristina Contu, Vito Racanelli, Anna Brugnolli\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/emmi/2807776\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a clinical condition frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED), with a high and early mortality rate. ED triage determines the priority of further evaluation of care at the time of patient arrival. Very little is known about the specific role of ED triage in PE. We aimed to evaluate (1) whether the current five-level triage (5LT) system can identify patients with PE and differently prioritize them for medical evaluation and (2) the discriminatory capacity of simplified revised Geneva score (SRGS) toward PE diagnosis when calculated by triage nurses. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective chart review on ED patients who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in 2023. Based on the CTPA report, patients were categorized into two subgroups: CTPA PE-negative and CTPA PE-positive. We then searched for correlations between PE diagnosis and triage priority level, time from triage to medical evaluation, SRGS, and National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). <b>Results:</b> Of the 196 patients included in the analysis (age 71.1 ± 16.9), 45 (23.0%) were CTPA PE-positive (26 proximal PE and 19 distal PE). There was no correlation between the assigned triage color code and the CTPA results. Although we found a statistically significant difference in the prevalence of CTPA-confirmed PE according to the results of the SRGS (<i>p</i> = 0.014), the SRGS calculated at the time of triage showed a poor prediction accuracy for subsequent PE diagnosis (area under curve [AUC] 0.608). NEWS2 was significantly associated with the triage-assigned priority level (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> The current 5LT was unable to differently prioritize patients with or without PE, and it seems unlikely that implementation of SRGS in the triage nurse evaluation will significantly improve the prioritization of patients with suspected PE for medical evaluation. Nonetheless, application of SRGS in triage evaluation may improve the appropriateness of the subsequent clinical pathway for PE diagnosis and risk stratification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine International\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"2807776\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101901/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/emmi/2807776\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/emmi/2807776","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肺栓塞(PE)是急诊科(ED)常见的临床疾病,死亡率高且早。急诊科分诊决定了在病人到达时进一步评估护理的优先级。我们对急诊分诊在PE中的具体作用知之甚少。我们的目的是评估(1)当前的五级分诊(5LT)系统是否可以识别PE患者并对其进行不同的医疗评估优先级;(2)简化修订日内瓦评分(SRGS)在分诊护士计算PE诊断时的歧视性能力。方法:对2023年接受ct肺血管造影(CTPA)的ED患者进行回顾性分析。根据CTPA报告,将患者分为两个亚组:CTPA pe阴性和CTPA pe阳性。然后,我们搜索PE诊断与分诊优先级、从分诊到医学评估的时间、SRGS和国家早期预警评分2 (NEWS2)之间的相关性。结果:196例患者(年龄71.1±16.9岁),45例(23.0%)CTPA PE阳性(近端PE 26例,远端PE 19例)。分配的分诊颜色代码与CTPA结果之间没有相关性。虽然我们发现根据SRGS结果ctpa确诊的PE患病率有统计学意义(p = 0.014),但分诊时计算的SRGS对随后PE诊断的预测准确性较差(曲线下面积[AUC] 0.608)。结论:目前的5LT无法区分有或没有PE的患者的优先级,在分诊护士评估中实施SRGS似乎不太可能显著提高疑似PE患者的医疗评估优先级。尽管如此,在分诊评估中应用SRGS可以提高PE诊断和风险分层的后续临床途径的适宜性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementation of Revised Simplified Geneva Score in Triage Nurse Evaluation for Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Chart Review.

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a clinical condition frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED), with a high and early mortality rate. ED triage determines the priority of further evaluation of care at the time of patient arrival. Very little is known about the specific role of ED triage in PE. We aimed to evaluate (1) whether the current five-level triage (5LT) system can identify patients with PE and differently prioritize them for medical evaluation and (2) the discriminatory capacity of simplified revised Geneva score (SRGS) toward PE diagnosis when calculated by triage nurses. Methods: A retrospective chart review on ED patients who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in 2023. Based on the CTPA report, patients were categorized into two subgroups: CTPA PE-negative and CTPA PE-positive. We then searched for correlations between PE diagnosis and triage priority level, time from triage to medical evaluation, SRGS, and National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). Results: Of the 196 patients included in the analysis (age 71.1 ± 16.9), 45 (23.0%) were CTPA PE-positive (26 proximal PE and 19 distal PE). There was no correlation between the assigned triage color code and the CTPA results. Although we found a statistically significant difference in the prevalence of CTPA-confirmed PE according to the results of the SRGS (p = 0.014), the SRGS calculated at the time of triage showed a poor prediction accuracy for subsequent PE diagnosis (area under curve [AUC] 0.608). NEWS2 was significantly associated with the triage-assigned priority level (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The current 5LT was unable to differently prioritize patients with or without PE, and it seems unlikely that implementation of SRGS in the triage nurse evaluation will significantly improve the prioritization of patients with suspected PE for medical evaluation. Nonetheless, application of SRGS in triage evaluation may improve the appropriateness of the subsequent clinical pathway for PE diagnosis and risk stratification.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine International
Emergency Medicine International EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
187
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Emergency Medicine International is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for doctors, nurses, paramedics and ambulance staff. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to prehospital care, disaster preparedness and response, acute medical and paediatric emergencies, critical care, sports medicine, wound care, and toxicology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信